User talk:MJL/Archive 8

(talk page stalker) Don't mind us, just go about your editing.

WP:AIV

Many of your filter-log reports can mask more urgent cases. I have much experience with monitoring filters. My advise: do not report IPs with a few trigger attempts and no recent edits. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water

I added a comment at WikiProject merge discussion assessing the consensus there. From my perspective, there is no significant disagreement, and I want them to go ahead with the merger if there's consensus rather than letting the proposal stagnate. However, I did not close the discussion because I want to leave it open for participants to coordinate their actions. Do you think I did a good job? Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 06:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Qzekrom you did a FANTASTIC job!! It's always good to allow for more open discussion for these sorts of things when the next steps aren't immediately clear. All that's left is the nitty-gritty details, so that shouldn't be too difficult! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the Barnstar and for the kind words. Doing what I can to help rookies around here and try to spread the word. Red Director (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course! It's just impressive to see literally thousands of welcomings from a single user! It's much appreciated :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! You never know where the great editors will come from on here. Someone who has a lot of potential might just need the introduction to some topics or an experienced user to point them in the right direction. At least that is one of my hopes. Red Director (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Some good words right there! If you ever feel overwhelmed, do please let me know here anytime! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Critiques

Hey MJL, hope you're well. Sorry I've been away for a bit, but I have finally replied to your most recent email. :) Not trying to seem like I'm breathing down your neck or anything, but I saw the drama with JzG/ElKevbo, and I stumbled across User talk:ElKevbo#Helpful note. I understand and appreciate the fact that you were trying to help. But, I have some critiques regarding your message there. First, ElKevbo is a highly established editor, with nearly 70k edits from 2005. That's an extreme degree of dedication to the project, and when an editor of that magnitude makes a complaint to AN/I, we tend to take it very seriously and give it a fair hearing, even if the complaint ends up being in the wrong. Second, you're not wrong that AN/I is generally a last resort...but that's for petty, everyday matters. When it comes to admin abuse/misconduct, which is an extremely severe issue if it happens, it tends to be more of a first line of defense. Arbcom is the body responsible for handling admin misconduct, but they require prior attempts to resolve the issue. That usually means AN/I is a required prerequisite to actually dealing with an issue, even if the community is very hesitant to sanction an admin. Thirdly, it's worth considering that you encouraged a user to strike a complaint that was subsequently endorsed by the community. In other words, your instinct that the complaint should not have been filed was wrong. Fourthly, with absolutely no disrespect to you intended, somebody who's invested a significant portion of their life into the project over the long term does not need a newbie unilaterally telling them to strike anything. This gets into the "hierarchical" culture I tried to explain to you. And, lastly, you've been repeatedly warned to not get out of your depth in terms of meta-involvement and authoritativeness. AN/I gatekeeping/mediating is certainly not something you should be engaging in, nor should you be sticking your nose in drama like this. You're just going to continue rustling feathers this way.

Another thing, this. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that a user can't assess a discussion and designate its AN/C listing as "on hold" due to a lack of consensus, but there is nothing wrong with doing so. This is more of the same authoritativeness that is getting you in hot water.

Here, you come across as making light of the numerous requests that you slow down and work your way up, saying you need an NAC "safeplace", amazingly increasing the number of admins threatening to CIR-block you. BrownHairedGirl has thoroughly explained, basically, the same exact thing that I have already attempted to explain to you, about the need to start small in the content space and gradually work your way up over the long-term. I have to be honest, this is not something that you should have needed to have explained to you again, and focusing on how you're being treated rather than focusing on actually following the advice people are giving you is not going to help the situation. This isn't about you being bullied out of participation, this is about you learning how things work around here and being capable of adjusting to criticism in good faith. That's part of CIR. It is not escaping anyone that you have amassed nearly 5k edits, and not even 20% of those are contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Seriously, this is a large project, and it is possible to contribute primarily behind the scenes, but you seriously need to become a respected and established editor before you can start branching out. As BHG explained, it doesn't work the other way around.

Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I'm honestly trying to help you. You're continuing to get into hot water and continuing to involve yourself with drama. This is not good. Like I said, I have your back, and I'm willing to help you improve, and I have a modicum of respect where other admins will defer to my mentorship, but this is now five admins that I know of who want to CIR-block you. That's not a problem with Wikipedia admins, that's quite simply a point where you need to seriously listen and hear what we're trying to tell you to do. I cannot realistically defend you against five admins who think you should be blocked, simply because I have adopted you. Please, take my advice, and bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. No editor this new should be nearly as controversial as you are, it isn't normal. There's an unlimited number of ways to contribute to the project, find a niche you like and focus on it! If you need help in that regard, I can refer you to resources. It's fun, that's fundamentally why we're all here. Those of us who manage things behind the scenes do so at the pleasure of the content editors, after we've earned our place. The best editors never piss anyone off, and make changes when they do. Please start taking this seriously. Focus on the encyclopedia. Involvement in other areas should, and does, come naturally with experience. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, It's never harsh! I really can't disagree with most anything you said. Most of my response was just sent via email now, so I hope everyone knows that I have come up with a direct plan of action for addressing this consistent complaint. I do not want to let the project down by ruining things further, so I have put a hold on any contributions I have in project space for the time being. Eventually that will be lifted, but that's a self-imposed (and self-enforced) topic ban.

The only thing I will say on anything you brought up specifically was concerning this. The user in question, I noticed, previously submitted a duplicate request for a separate matter (since reverted by a different user). Then they were told about {{Initiated}} by another user. After that, they then voted for the RfC in question. That's generally not good practice for that board without self-disclosure, but a more neutral comment as was done seemed to be the best outcome I could have asked for.

Other than that, I was in the wrong on all other counts. Gravely in some matters, avoidably in all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't think of it as a TBAN. A TBAN is a harsh sanction for someone who the project needs to be protected from. I don't think of you that way. I think, on the contrary, you're a reasonable, amicable person, and the project can benefit from your involvement, and that is what I want to see. I mean that. You just need to pace yourself as a new editor. Get established in the mainspace. Contribute something real. Become involved in WikiProjects related to your personal interests. If writing is your thing, write articles. If research is your thing, improve sourcing. If spelling and grammar is your thing, be a copyeditor. If sharing knowledge is your thing, improve article quality. If you don't have a thing, and you just like to read articles, just read articles, and make intuitive improvements as you see the need. If you're a visual person, add images. If you like to organize things, categorize articles. If you like fighting against vandalism, be a recent changes patroller. If you're interested in consensus building, don't close RfCs, participate in them. Even the simplest tasks like wikification need doing. I exclusively edit behind the scenes. There is a never-ending supply of admin work that I am obligated to help with. I have only ever written one stub. I have no GAs, or FAs, or DYKs. I have never written more than a handful of paragraphs in all of Wikipedia. But, I still found ways to contribute, and the most enjoyment I've had on this project was simply editing articles for fun. That led, unintentionally, to adminship. Be an editor. You'll discover things that motivate you, and that will naturally take you behind the scenes as needed. You can become involved behind the scenes when necessary, but don't just jump straight into a leadership role. You need, at least, a year of experience before you start getting involved in such ways. Leaders are nothing but trusted servants. You have to earn such trust, and that trust comes slowly around here. I genuinely remember thinking that I was a good editor who deserved respect, back when I had a few hundred edits. I did not understand why I couldn't simply be taken seriously and respected in spite of my newbie status. 1,000 or 2,000 edits seemed unthinkable to me, and I did not feel the need to have to arbitrarily "prove myself" like that. It was frustrating. I even attempted to slightly lower the threshold for service awards! Since I was a new editor, my perfectly reasonable proposal was not even taken seriously. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I can relate to how you feel. You probably are reasonable enough as a person to be a leader here, someday. But you need to just focus on the basics for now. Everything else will fall into place. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for posting that, @Swarm:. Wise words, which I very much hope that MJL will take to heart.

I should stress that per my lengthy comments[1] on Danny's talk, I do not want to CIR-block Matt ... at this stage.

However, I do repeat my warning to MJL that they really seriously need to change their game fast, or I could change my mind.

MJL, the incidents which Swarm links above (User talk:ElKevbo#Helpful note, and this to Qzekrom) are so inappropriate that they literally made made my jaw drop. Wrong in substance, and utterly disastrous in tone. You come across as if you think you are one of the most senior admins, yet you are a relative newbie. Swarm is right: there is a hierarchy here, a hierarchy of experinced and earned respect. You seem completely unaware that you have neither.

Please please, MJL, do take SWarm's advice: bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. All of it. Really. Seriously. Now.

MJL, If you ended up at ANI now, I would also try to defend you, but it would only be only an absolutely-final warning basis. And there is already such a long history of you getting way out of your depth and ignoring warnings that a very persuasive case could be made for a lengthy block/ban now. If that case was made at ANI, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

What really worries me is that you simply do not seem to be listening to and taking on board any of the advice given to you. I don't see from yo any sign of progress, and I am becoming increasingly concerned that this isn't just someone still figuring out their place on en.wp, but someone with some issues which will not change. It won't take much more of the sort of thing Swarm linked above before I'd abandon even my one-final-chance stand. Your apologies after the fact are no longer enough. You need to stop doing it.

Please, MJL, please do listen ... and get off this highway to a block/ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and Swarm: Could one of you restore Draft:Staatsregeling 1798 for me and move it to User:MJL/Draft:Staatsregeling 1798 without leaving a redirect? I've always meant to finish that article, and unlike some of the other subpages I have actually think I could get that one done to a reasonable degree without too much help. ^{Also, Swarm is that how people see me? Like your 2010 proposal? I feel so absolutely cringeworthy now!} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, BHG, you have my earnest apologies. Thank you for having faith in me! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, MJL. That's welcome.

However, as above, apologies after the fact will not be enough for you to avoid finding yourself in a storm of your own making. To avoid that, you will need a very rapid and very firm change of approach to demonstrate that you are actually here to build an encyclopedia. So far you have given a very strong and consistent impression that you see Wikipedia as another venue in which to pursue leadership ambitions. So if you want to stay on en.wp you will need to make a very clear and clean break from that approach ... otherwise an indefinite WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE block is a near-inevitable part of your future.

As requested, i have WP:REFUNDed the deleted draft to User:MJL/Staatsregeling 1798. I hope that the request is a sign that you do intend to switch focus to content. Good luck! -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to your forwarded email

Hey, Matt. Sorry to reply to your email on your talk page, but given the nature of your request, I feel that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, I am obligated to respond on-wiki. My assessment, unequivocally and unreservedly, is that your idea to discreetly create a new account in the current context would be incredibly inappropriate and could not possibly be considered to be a WP:LEGITSOCK. More than anything, it comes across as an attempt to evade scrutiny, and I quite seriously think it's the worst possible move you could even consider making right now. There's literally nothing hanging over your head if you simply take on board criticism and adjust accordingly, and having Kudpung breathing down your neck is not remotely an acceptable reason to create a secret sock account. GorillaWarfare is a far more senior editor than I, and if she disagrees with my assessment, you should defer to her judgment without question. But, I seriously doubt she would think this is okay, and frankly, I'm surprised that you'd even consider such a thing. You know you're on extremely thin ice right now, and that means you have to show everyone that they're wrong to want to block you. Thinking that you should create a secret account to start over with is unbelievably boneheaded and extremely alarming. cc: @BrownHairedGirl, TonyBallioni, Ad Orientem, and Nick: ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, with @Swarm. That is a very very very very very very very bad idea indeed. Socking is one of the few complete and utter absolute no-nos on Wikipedia.

I think that it was right for Swarm to break confidentiality in this case, because Swarm was placed in a very difficult position by MJL's floating of the idea.

However, since this knowledge is shared as a result of that process, I recommend against taking any action for floating the idea.

But this is yet more evidence of MJL's track record of exceptionally bad judgement. MJL seemed by late yesterday to have started take some of the advice offered, and focus on content, so I allowed myself some hope that a corner had been turned.

MJL, you really need to cut the drama, of all forms. You are using up way too much of various admins' time+energy, and you are right on the edge of exhausting their patience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The only possible interest you could have in creating a new account (which would reduce or eliminate entirely scrutiny of your actions) is to enable you to collect permissions (specifically, to aide in passing RfA) and this comes after a renaming, of course, so makes the situation all the more serious. This aim of passing RfA (at the cost of other activities) is not really contributing to the encyclopedia - i.e WP:NOTHERE. Writing content and focusing on improving the existing content here on Wikipedia should be your only goal currently. You're fortunate to still have rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights, good work editing over the next few weeks and months should see further permissions being granted - new page reviewer for example and in the fullness of time, assuming a dramatic improvement in your editing conduct, passing RfA won't be out of the question, but you do need to demonstrate you are here to edit first and foremost, not just collect rights. I can tell you right now, your edit count percentages make passing RfA impossible. 18.4% mainspace contributions versus 25.9% Wikipedia contributions is catastrophic; 133 edits to ANI, 80 to Requests for Closure; 23 to an ANI archive - that's incoherent, frankly. It can all be fixed though. Drop The Signpost (preferably in the nearest skip you find) and dive into content. Ignore ANI (unless it's a thread about your conduct - though if you focus on content, chances are nobody will be reporting you to ANI). Don't worry about Requests for Closures, leave it to others who can deal with it all. Anyway, I think that's about all the advice I can offer, it's very much up to you to decide whether you make changes and morph into a productive user, or if you continue to be a time sink we community ban by Easter. Nick (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So, if we’re asking if MJL is eligible for a clean start, I suppose the answer would be yes, but I’m going to caveat that heavily. Undisclosed alts (which cleanstarts are) “are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Given, this aspect of the socking policy isn’t exactly strictly enforced so long as the previous account is abandoned (as an example, my own account violated it for years unknowingly), but any admin could point to it as justification to block. Given that your current focus still overwhelmingly seems to be project space, and you were recently told to slow down in that regard, I’m fairly confident you’d be violating the socking policy within minutes of creating the new account, and I would support enforcing it relatively strictly as it comes across as an attempt to evade scrutiny.

If I were to come across this in CheckUser, I think I would soft block the sock if it had edited anything outside the main or talk namespaces or possibly report to the community at ANI to let them decide how to handle it. It is a really bad idea and while I think you may be able to justify it some way under policy, I’m also pretty sure someone could find a way to justify blocking both accounts under policy even considering CLEANSTART. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

I have already received a response from GorillaWarfare and was satisfactory. I was floating this idea and had already decided against it last night. I really really did not expect a response like this this morning. I mostly just figured I would force myself to make the decisions I didn't want to. Updating my watchlist, getting rid of the admin-y scripts, and actually start mainspace editing. The hounding issue has seemed to go away for the time-being (which I rather surprised you did not mention considering that was the primary reason for this idea). I'm seriously trying to do things the right way, but I don't have the mental fortitude to devote to this project if it means I wake up to 4 talk page messages every morning.

My mistakes have given me an above average level of scrutiny. The whole point of this temporary spa was to just give me a month away from project space in an organized setting. You were fully aware that a highly respected admin has taken to denigrating me, and I suspect that was the only reason they were not pinged in regards to this concern.

I'll get to reading everyone's replies soon, but I need a wikibreak after all this. I can't handle being a source of distress for this many people. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I am only taking a wikibreak because a different admin recommended it to me via email. As much as a pain I am to deal with, I'm still trying here... I'm only a volunteer. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to add to your stress, MJL, of having more talk page comments to face but I just want to share that I've taken two WikiBreaks, the first time for 6 months and the second time for a year. I was getting burned out, rather bitter and there were several editors who got under my skin too easily. Leaving Wikipedia behind for a while and later returning, energized, improved things for me considerably and I encourage you to think about taking a WikiBreak for a few weeks or a few months (that's your call).

You don't erase your past disputes by taking a WikiBreak but YOU are more resilient. When you spend too much time on Wikipedia, especially in Project space, you can easily get pulled into drama and start taking differences with other editors way too seriously, saying some regrettable comments instead of just walking away (which is usually the best response). My only other advice is to not to edit when you are tired, stressed, emotionally upset or drinking (it happens). It is far too easy to fly off the handle and be reactive when you are tired.

Good luck with your editing and your break, if you decide to take one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, Matt. I hope you understand that it was not my intent to "throw you to the wolves", to aggravate your stress, or to otherwise drive you off the project. I am required as an administrator to be highly accountable and transparent, and there would simply be no ethical way to respond to an attempt to violate policy without disclosing my response on-wiki and notifying the other administrators involved. To be clear, I did not refrain from pinging User:Kudpung because he is an abusive harasser, but because you felt he is biased against you. It would not be fair to you to involve an admin who you feel is biased, when so many other "unbiased" admins are already involved. I have already explained that it is justifiable for Kudpung to monitor your edits, if he is able to find legitimate violations, as he was. I also told you that I would intervene if he crossed the line of reasonable correcting at some point. He has not contacted you since we had that off-wiki exchange. Thus, there was little logical reason for you to want to create a secret account. I'm not sure what @GorillaWarfare: said to you (though I would appreciate it if she shared it here). But, the dissuasion of creating a secret account by other admins should not have affected your course of action, if your course of action was to continue contributing, uncontroversially and in good faith. This turn of events, in my opinion, should not have affected your participation in the project. It should have simply dissuaded you from employing deceptive or secretive methods. Even if your intentions were pure and harmless, I would think that you could understand where we're coming from. Even if your intentions were completely therapeutic, in this "last chance" context, you could not evade the appearance of socking to avoid scrutiny. Now, I don't want to cast any doubt that your intentions were for purely good faith personal/mental health reasons. In fact, mental health is an extremely intimate issue to me on a personal level. I would never, ever, dismiss mental health issues. Nor do I want to cast doubt on your good faith motivations for creating a "CLEANSTART" account. But like I said, when you're on a last-chance status, there could be virtually no way of creating a CLEANSTART account without the appearance of an attempt to evade scrutiny. It would be impossible. As TonyBallioni (who is a super-admin with access to highly-classified private data) suggests, you would likely be identified and blocked as a sock immediately. It simply isn't a viable option. Next, getting into what Nick suggests, I agree with him. You do appear to be primarily motivated to attain "rank" and/or eventual adminship. It is not unfeasible for a user to join with the intention of becoming an admin. However, it is highly unfeasible to attempt to do so without proving yourself as a highly valuable, dedicated, and passionate encyclopedist first. There is no way to "play" the system to gain rank and status without sacrificing a great deal to the academic project itself. I genuinely hope that your Wikibreak is innocent and sincere. If you attempt a clean start under the guise of a Wikibreak, you will forever be considered to be a sockpuppeteer; the lowest of the dregs prohibited from participating in this great project. Just keep that in mind. If you're just a soul whose intentions are good, take a short break, and come back under this account. I promise you, no one here cares, in the slightest, about past mistakes. Just present ones. Soldier on, and don't do anything overzealous or stupid. You can be a pillar of the community. It just takes time and integrity. Best, and hope to see you return real soon:

Your ever-faithful adopter,

~Swarm~ {talk} 07:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Current Events Noticeboard

I failed to make my views known during the request for comment period, except to you on your page. I would like to if this Current Events Notice Board has been created, and if so, where it is.

Its biggest difficulty will be the non-uniformity and non-agreement about appropriate use of the template "current" as well as its proliferation of functionally similar or identical copied templates, as well as similar proliferation related to category usage.

Regards, Yellowdesk (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)